Transcription
Research-Based Practices in AfterschoolPrograms for High School YouthJenell Holstead, Mindy Hightower King, and Ashley MillerStructured afterschool programs are often perceived asa service for young children only. Communities oftenoverlook teenagers, expecting more substantial benefitsfrom investments in programs for younger children (Hall& Gruber, 2007). Of about 8.4 million children participating in afterschool programs nationwide, only 1 million arehigh school students (Afterschool Alliance, 2009b). In addition, only 15 percent of the programs funded by the21st Century Community Learning Centers (CCLC) pro-Meanwhile, the benefits of afterschool activitiesfor high school youth are well documented: increasedacademic achievement (Friedman & Bleiberg, 2007;Goerge, Cusick, Wasserman, & Gladden, 2007),prevention of drug use (Hall & Gruber, 2007), andincreased likelihood of obtaining work and gaining lifeskills experience (Barr, Birmingham, Fornal, Klein, &Piha, 2006).A small body of research identifies characteristicsof afterschool programs that enhance the academic andsocial development of high school youth. Given therelatively small number of afterschool programs thatserve high school students, ensuring that the programsthat do exist follow these promising practices is critical.If existing programs maximize the academic and socialgram include high school students (Afterschool Alliance,n.d.). Recent budget cuts in many schools have reducedor eliminated high school extracurricular activities such asmusic and athletics, leaving some teenagers without safe,enriching activities after school (Hall & Gruber, 2007).JENELL HOLSTEAD, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of human development and psychology at University of Wisconsin–Green Bay.MINDY HIGHTOWER KING, Ph.D., is a research associate at theCenter on Education and Lifelong Learning at Indiana UniversityBloomington.ASHLEY MILLER is a graduate student in professional counselingat University of Wisconsin Oshkosh.
benefits of participation by following these practices,more investment in out-of-school time programming forhigh school youth may be possible.To determine the extent to which high schoolafterschool programs followed promising practiceresearch, we studied 19 21st CCLC high schoolafterschool programs in one Midwestern state. Welooked for research-based promising practices in threekey areas identified in the literature: program activities,recruitment and retention, and student choice andvoice. We found that evidence-based academic practicessuch as tutoring services and homework help or creditrecovery opportunities were implemented more oftenthan were practices related to student choice and voice.Our findings have implications for practice in otherafterschool programs serving high school youth.programs can offer high school youth is recovery ofschool credits (Deschenes, Little, Baldwin-Grossman,& Arbreton, 2011). Students can earn school creditsin afterschool programs by, for example, completingclassroom work, taking part in internships, or doingcommunity service (Forum for Youth Investment, 2003).Since most students plan to either enter the workforce orattend college after high school, afterschool programs canhelp them by teaching life skills and offering assistancewith job applications, résumés, and test preparation(Barr et al., 2006).Recruitment and RetentionOne of the most challenging aspects of offering an afterschool program for high school youth is getting youth toattend (Afterschool Alliance, 2009a). It is often difficultfor an afterschool program to compete with the many acThree Key Areas of Program Focustivities to which high school youth have access (ForumThe literature reviewed below identifies three key areasfor Youth Investment, 2003). As a result, afterschool proof promising practices for high school afterschoolgrams must be flexible with these students and diligentprograms: program activities, recruitment and retention,in their recruitment and retention (Afterschool Alliance,and student choice and voice.2009a; Forum for Youth InvestThese are not necessarily2003). For example, programGiven the relatively small ment,the only important aspects of afstaff can extend personal invitationsnumber of afterschoolterschool programming for highto youth and provide incentivesprograms that serve high for attendance (Yohalem, Wilsonschool youth. For example, somepractices found to be effective forschool students, ensuring Ahlstrom, Ferber, & Gaines, 2006),younger youth may also be applithat the programs that do such as pizza parties or raffle drawcable to this population. However,ings. Moreover, efforts to recruitexistfollowtheseprograms that serve high schooland retain students should not ocpromising practices isyouth must look different fromcur only at the beginning of the yearthose serving young children in orbut should be ongoing.critical.der to meet high school students’interests and needs. For example, high school studentsStudent Choice and Voiceare much busier than younger students. Because theyThe literature also documents the importance of providinggenerally have other options and obligations, they muststudent choice, that is, giving students the opportunitybe motivated to attend afterschool programs (Forum forto select activities. Although it can be difficult to planYouth Investment, 2003). The three key areas of promprogramming around the diverse interests of high schoolising practice discussed below therefore are specific toyouth, it is possible to choose activities that will interestafterschool programs serving high school youth.the majority of students (Barr et al., 2006). Programs canalso offer a choice of various activities that are organizedProgram Activitiesinto short blocks of time, such as eight-week intervalsPrevious research suggests that afterschool programs(Lauver, 2004). This kind of scheduling both incorporatesserving high school youth should incorporate suchmany different student interests into programming andactivities as tutoring services and homework assistance,prevents boredom. In addition, program staff can buildcredit recovery opportunities, or opportunities toflexible program schedules to allow youth to participatelearn skills necessary for college or the workplace.in the activities that interest them most.Academically oriented high school programs should useThe Afterschool Alliance (2009a) notes that studenttutoring to provide targeted assistance (Beckett et al.,voice is one of the most important aspects of afterschool2009) and provide homework help sessions to ensureprograms serving high school youth. One way to givethat all students are able to complete their schoolwork.students input into program matters is to incorporateAccording to Deschenes and colleagues (2011), onestudents in the process of planning activities (Friedmanof the most beneficial academic opportunities afterschool& Bleiburg, 2007). Students should also have the chanceHolstead, Hightower King, & MillerRESEARCH-BASED PRACTICES IN AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAMS FOR HIGH SCHOOL YOUTH39
to make other programmatic decisions. For example,programs can develop student advisory councils to giveyouth leadership opportunities and representation in staffmeetings. In addition, programs can involve students inthe process of hiring new staff (Barr et al., 2006).MethodologySettingWe studied 19 21st CCLC afterschool programs thatserved high school youth. They included rural, suburban,and urban locations, representing 11 different countiesdistributed throughout one Midwestern state. At 17 ofthe sites, local school districts were the fiscal agents ofthe 21st CCLC grant; community-based organizationswere the fiscal agents at the remaining two sites. Allimplemented programming on school property. All 19programs served youth from grades 9–12, with twoschools also serving students in grades 7 and 8. Datawere collected during the 2010–2011 school year, whenall 19 sites were in the second year of implementing 21stCCLC programming.Because the programs included in this analysis werefunded by 21st CCLC grants, they focused on academicoutcomes. The program activities we observed thereforewere geared heavily toward academic achievement. Thisemphasis on academic achievement may not generalizeto other kinds of programs that have a broader focus.Data SourcesWorking as the external evaluators for the statedepartment of education’s 21st CCLC initiative, wedeveloped an inventory form to study the extent towhich the 19 sites were implementing research-basedpromising practices in the areas of program activities,recruitment and retention, and student voice and choice.We developed the tool because no such instrument wasavailable to examine the three target areas in high schoolafterschool programs. The inventory was used as part ofthe statewide evaluation of the 21st CCLC program forseveral years.Each site was visited on one afternoon in the fall of2010 by a trained site visitor, a graduate student witha background in education and research methodology.To ensure consistency in their coding of the inventoryform, site visitors participated in a three-hour trainingthat included vignettes and role-playing activities.Site visitors completed the inventory form based oninterviews with site coordinators and teachers, whichwere recorded, and on observations of programming.40 Afterschool Matters The visitors also compared interview responses to theirobservations. Each inventory form submitted by a sitevisitor was reviewed by an experienced research teammember to ensure interrater reliability.Implementation of Promising PracticesWe found that many of the 21st CCLC sites implementedpromising practices identified in the literature. However,the extent to which programs implemented the practicesvaried, with some being more frequently implementedthan others.Program ActivitiesTable 1 displays the number of 21st CCLC sites that,according to their reports or our observations, offeredprogram activities such as homework help and tutoring,credit recovery, and career and college development orlife skills training. As shown in the table, 11 of the 19afterschool programs serving high school youth reportedoffering students time to do homework or receivetutoring. These programs offered a much greater levelof flexibility in this academic support than is typical inprograms serving younger youth, where children areusually required to participate in homework help at settimes daily (Johnson & McComb, 2008). To begin with,eight of the 19 programs reported that they did not offerhomework help and tutoring at all. At almost half ofthe 11 sites that did, homework help and tutoring werevoluntary for all students. At three sites, this academicsupport was voluntary for most students but mandatoryfor some students, based on need. At only three sites wasit mandatory for all students. Despite this voluntary status,observations showed that, in nine of the 10 sites thatoffered homework help and tutoring on the day of the sitevisit, most program participants engaged in this activity.Of the 19 afterschool programs, 15 offered studentstime for credit recovery. Five programs offered creditrecovery only, without any homework help or other kindsof activities. As shown in Table 1, almost all of the programsthat offered credit recovery did so with computer-basedsoftware exclusively; one program provided teacher-ledcredit recovery. The number of students who attendedcredit recovery opportunities on the day of the site visitdiffered dramatically from site to site. At some sites,a limited number of students were able to take part incredit recovery at one time, as only a certain number oflicenses to use the software had been purchased. At othersites, students could participate in credit recovery beforeschool, during school, after school, or any time they hadan Internet connection. At such programs, afterschoolSpring 2015
Table 1. Program Activities Offered by High School 21st CCLC ProgramsNumberof Sites(out of 19)Program ActivityHOMEWORK HELP/TUTORINGMandatory for allMandatory for some, based on needVoluntaryCREDIT RECOVERY Before schoolAfter schoolDuring schoolSummerAny time onlineCAREER AND COLLEGE PLANNINGInformation about collegesCollege readinessCollege visitsInformation about careersGuest speakers on careersLIFE SKILLS OPPORTUNITIESCharacter developmentCooking classesFinancial literacyNutrition & healthy livingSelf-defenseSocial skillsstaff monitored student progress and provided technicalassistance, even if students did not attend the programafter school. Because of these variations, the number ofstudents engaged in credit recovery activities on site visitdays ranged from one to 52.Activities incorporating real-world applicationinclude career and college development and life skillstraining. Seven of the 19 high school afterschool programsprovided opportunities for career and college development,and 10 offered life skills training. Interestingly, only threeprograms offered these activities on a regular basis, fouror five days per week. Examples of program offerings inthese areas, as reported by the programs or observed bysite visitors, are provided in Table 1.Holstead, Hightower King, & MillerRecruitment and RetentionTable 2 displays the number ofsites that incorporated recruitment and retention strategies11into their programming. Recruit3ment methods ranged from ac3tive approaches to passive strate5gies. As shown in Table 2, passive strategies included havingteachers or guidance counselors15remind students about the pro1gram, sending information to14parents, using the morning orlunch school announcements to2promote the program, relying on12word of mouth, and distributing5flyers to students. More proac1tive approaches were less often4reported. Three programs sentprogram staff into classroomsto promote the program, and74four programs sent personal in2vitations to students who might3benefit from participation. Sites2reported implementing recruit1ment strategies anywhere fromonce at the beginning of the10year to daily throughout the3year. However, over half of the2programs (10) implemented re4cruitment strategies infrequently:5monthly, at the beginning of each13semester, or at the beginning ofthe year only. The remaining nineprograms reported implementingrecruitment strategies at least weekly.Retention tactics included both active and passivestrategies to keep students attending. As outlined inTable 2, proactive strategies included using tangibleincentives such as pizza parties or raffle drawings, havinginteresting field trips, and having a formal “bring a buddy”program. Sites also reported using passive strategies. Sixrelied on students’ intrinsic motivation to graduate orreceive academic help. Three sites said that they reliedon the positive relationships youth had developed withprogram staff. Only six of the 19 programs reported thatthey asked youth about possible retention strategies.RESEARCH-BASED PRACTICES IN AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAMS FOR HIGH SCHOOL YOUTH41
Table 2. Recruitment and Retention at High School 21st CCLC ProgramsNumberof Sites(out of 19)StrategyRECRUITMENT STRATEGIESPassiveSchool announcementsFlyersCommunication by school personnelInformation to parentsWord of mouthActiveProgram staff enter classrooms to describe programProgram staff extend personal invitations to students981310834RETENTION STRATEGIESPassiveBuilding positive relationships with youthIntrinsic motivationActiveBring a buddy programField tripsIncentivesStudent Choice and VoiceTable 3 (on the next page) displays the number of sitesthat incorporated elements of student choice and voiceinto afterschool programming, such as opportunitiesfor interest-based choices and involvement in programdecisions and development. Fourteen of the 19 programswe studied reported that they offered students interestbased choices. However, on the day of the observation,no opportunities for student choice were observed atnine program sites. Only four programs offered studentstwo or more choices on the day of the observation.Examples of choices included allowing students tochoose which activity to participate in, which assignmentto complete, or where they would work. Sites reportedthat they changed program offerings throughout the yearto accommodate student interests. The frequency withwhich activities changed varied anywhere from weeklyto once a semester.Student voice—youth involvement in program decisions and development—was less common. We identified from the literature three formal means of involvingyouth: surveys, youth advisory boards, and involvementof youth in hiring decisions. Only three of the 19 programs reported that they distributed surveys to gain stu-42 Afterschool Matters 36135dent feedback about theprogram: one at the beginning of the year only,one at the midway pointof the semester, and oneat the end of the semester. None of the sites hadyouth advisory boards tohelp plan activities andmake program decisions.None requested studentinput on new staff hires.However, 10 sites reported that they used informal communication andsolicited verbal feedbackas means of includingstudents in program decisions.Implications forPracticeThe extent to which practices in the three key areasidentified in the literaturewere implemented in the21st CCLC programs we observed varied considerably.Research-based program activities were implementedmost frequently, followed by recruitment and retentionpractices and finally by student choice and voice practices.Program ActivitiesThe programs in our study frequently provided academic program activities identified in the literature as beingimportant to high school students: homework help andtutoring, credit recovery opportunities, and career andcollege development and life skills training. This findingis not surprising, as our sample included only 21st CCLCprograms, which are geared toward the development ofacademic skills. Moreover, these activities may be intrinsically motivating to participants, as high school youth arelikely to attend afterschool programs because they are motivated to excel, not because they are required to attend(Deschenes et al., 2011) or lack other options after school.In addition, program staff might be able to establish realworld connections for high school youth more easily thanfor younger children, since high school students will soonembark into the real world (Deschenes et al., 2011).The homework help and tutoring in the high schoolprograms in this study were structured differently fromSpring 2015
Table 3. Student Choice and Voice at High School 21st CCLC ProgramsNumberof Sites(out of 19)ElementALLOWING YOUTH TO CHOOSE ACTIVITIES14Number of times students chose activities during site visitNoneOneTwo or more964ways they present theirprograms to youth. Theyshould also considertalking with youth aboutpotentialrecruitmentand retention strategies.Few programs in ourstudy solicited suchstudent feedback.Student Choice andVoiceMethods used to involve studentsA clear challenge for the3Student survey21st CCLC programs inthe study was student0Youth advisory boardchoice and voice. To0Involving youth in hiring staffmaximize participation,10Talking informally with students about programafterschool programs forhigh school youth mustoffer activities based onwhat is typically observed in programs serving youngerstudent interests (Friedman & Bleiburg, 2007). Programsyouth. Programs for younger children usually offertherefore must consider ways to incorporate students’homework help and tutoring on a predictable scheduleinterests and allow students to choose activities in which(Johnson & McComb, 2008), expecting students toto participate.participate before they go on to other program activities.Additionally, to enhance the quality of programming,At many of the programs included in this review,program staff should involve students formally inparticipation in homework help and tutoring wasprogram decisions and development. Though manyvoluntary, reflecting research that identifies flexibilityof the programs in our study solicited student input inof programming as a promising practice for highinformal conversations, programs for high school youthschool youth. Although homework help was voluntary,should be intentional about this element. Giving studentsnumerous students participated on site visit days,a voice in program matters has been identified as onesuggesting that the youth saw the benefit of completingof the most important aspects of a high school youththeir homework during program time.program (Afterschool Alliance, 2004).Credit recovery opportunities were also very flexible.Indeed, five programs provided credit recovery activitiesLimitationsexclusively. This practice represents a shift from the moreAlthough our study adds to the research on afterschoolcustomary 21st CCLC model, which provides numerousprograms for high school youth, a few limitations musttypes of offerings. However, the exclusive focus on creditbe acknowledged. First, the sample of 19 afterschoolrecovery shows that these programs were tailored toprograms is relatively small. Results may not generalizemeet the unique needs of high school youth.broadly to other 21st CCLC programs. In addition, allprograms included in this study were funded through theRecruitment and Retention21st CCLC initiative. Due to the goals of the 21st CCLCResearch-based practices in the area of recruitment andprogram, they may have implemented more academicallyretention were less frequently observed. This area couldbased content than would other kinds of programs. Thecertainly be enhanced at many of the programs in thisgreat extent to which the programs in this study offeredstudy. Although the methods used to recruit and retainhomework help and tutoring, credit recovery, and careerstudents were adequate, the frequency with whichand college development may not be representative ofprograms implemented active recruitment and retentionprograms funded by other means. By the same token,strategies was less than optimal. Program staff shouldprograms in this study may not have incorporatedactively recruit students and must be intentional about theas many diverse student interests beyond academicINVOLVING YOUTH IN PROGRAM DECISIONSHolstead, Hightower King, & MillerRESEARCH-BASED PRACTICES IN AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAMS FOR HIGH SCHOOL YOUTH43
achievement as other programs might. However, thestudy does further the research base on programs servinghigh school youth by providing information on practicesobserved and reported in these 19 21st CCLC programs.Capacities and ChallengesA quality afterschool program is one that can providesafety, positive youth development, academic enrichment,and support to students, no matter their age. For highschool youth specifically, regular participation has beenfound to have academic, personal, and social benefits(Afterschool Alliance, 2009a). However, compared toprogramming for younger age groups, there is a relativedearth of afterschool programs for high school youth.For this reason, it is critical for the programs that do existto provide quality programming.Since afterschool programs can help high schoolstudents graduate and prepare for life beyond highschool, offering high-quality programming is of theutmost importance. Afterschool programs for highschool youth must implement practices aligned withliterature. They must provide high school youth withprogram activities that help them succeed academically.They must also actively recruit and retain students andallow students to choose their activities and have a voicein program development.Clearly the afterschool programs in our study facechallenges. These challenges may also affect other highschool programs, even those not funded by 21st CCLC.The big challenge for programs in our sample wasproviding student choice and voice. As a start, programsshould focus professional development on this area. Atstaff meetings, for example, program leaders could giveresources to program staff and facilitate discussions aboutstudent choice and voice. In addition, organizationspecific professional development workshops couldhost local youth development professionals to talk aboutways to incorporate student choice and voice. Finally,statewide and national leaders should emphasize studentchoice and voice in selecting conference themes andworkshop topics. When program staff are trained toimplement research-based strategies in their work withhigh school youth, the quality of programs serving highschool youth can be enhanced.ReferencesAfterschool Alliance. (n.d.). 21st Century CommunityLearning Centers federal afterschool initiative. Retrievedfrom cfmAfterschool Alliance. (2004). Older youth need afterschoolprograms (Afterschool Alert Issue Brief No. 20).Retrieved from http://www.afterschoolalliance.org/issue 20 older youth.cfmAfterschool Alliance. (2009a). Afterschool innovationsin brief: Focusing on older youth (Afterschool Alert IssueBrief No. 36, 37, 38, 40). Retrieved from school InBrief 09 FINAL.pdfAfterschool Alliance. (2009b). America after 3pm: Themost in-depth study of how America’s children spend theirafternoons. Retrieved on May 19, 2011, from http://www.afterschoolalliance.org/aa3pm.cfmBarr, S., Birmingham, J., Fornal, J., Klein, R., & Piha,S. (2006). Three high school after-school initiatives:Lessons learned. New Directions for Youth Development,111, 67–79. doi:10.1002/yd.183Beckett, M., Borman, G., Capizzano, J., Parsley, D.,Ross, S., Schirm, A., & Taylor, J. (2009). Structuringout-of-school time to improve academic achievement: Apractice guide (NCEE #2009-012). Washington, DC:National Center for Education Evaluation and RegionalAssistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.Department of Education.Deschenes, S., Little, P., Baldwin-Grossman, J., &Arbreton, A. (2011). Participation over time: Keepingyouth engaged from middle school to high school.Afterschool Matters 12, 1–8.Forum for Youth Investment. (2003). High school afterschool: What is it? What might it be? Why is it important?(Policy Commentary #2). Washington, DC: Forum forYouth Investment. Retrieved from http://forumfyi.org/files/OSTPC2.pdfFriedman, L., & Bleiberg, M. (2007). Meeting thehigh school challenge: Making after-school work for olderstudents. New York, NY: The After-School Corporation.Retrieved from /meeting high school challenge makingafterschool work for older students.pdfGoerge, R., Cusick, G. R., Wasserman, M., & Gladden,R. M. (2007, January). After-school programs andacademic impact: A study of Chicago’s After School Matters.44 Afterschool Matters Spring 2015
Chicago, IL.: Chapin Hall. Retrieved from ications/ChapinHallDocument(2) 0.pdfHall, G., & Gruber, D. (2007). Back to the future:Engaging older youth (Fall 2007 Issue Brief). n.p.:Massachusetts Special Commission on Afterschool andOut of School Time.Johnson, T. S., & McComb, E. M. (2008). Homeworkhelp in afterschool programs: Literature review. Retrievedfrom pdf/hw lit rev.pdfLauver, S. (2004). Attracting and sustaining youthparticipation in after school programs. The EvaluationExchange, 10(1), 3–4. Retrieved from ticipation-in-afterschool-programsYohalem, N., Wilson-Ahlstrom, A., Ferber, T., & Gaines,E. (2006). Supporting older youth: What’s policy got todo with it? New Directions for Youth Development, 111,117–129. doi:10.1002/yd.187Holstead, Hightower King, & MillerRESEARCH-BASED PRACTICES IN AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAMS FOR HIGH SCHOOL YOUTH45
social development of high school youth. Given the relatively small number of afterschool programs that serve high school students, ensuring that the programs that do exist follow these promising practices is critical. If existing programs maximize the academic and social JENELL HOLSTEAD, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of human de-
